Talk:TCP

With respect to the guy who removed all the red links; I hate pages bloated with entries representing fancruft and/or (more likely "and") unlikely search terms as much as the next guy. However, I believe they were overzealous in removing all red links. See the MoS on the subject of redlinks within disambigs.

It's our aim to show all the entries that (a) Anyone could *reasonably* expect when searching for a term and (b) That could support an article entry (or at least notable subsection).

The "it's a redlink, remove it" rule works when deciding whether to give the benefit of the doubt to fancruft and dubious entries. If it's not got an article *and* it looks like an unlikely search term.... bye bye. But not all redlinks are bad.

Personally, I consider the blue-linked Top Cow Productions a more dubious entry than a lot of the red ones...

Fourohfour 11:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

• I read the MoS section you cited. It says, Links to non-existent articles ("redlinks") may be included only when an editor is confident that an encyclopedia article could be written on the subject. What makes you think an article could be written, for example, on Trajectory Change Point. I happen to be a commercial pilot and flight instructor, and am thus quite familiar with Air Traffic Control jargon. I've never heard the term. I just checked the Pilot-Controller Glossary and don't see it listed there. I did find some other references in google to some air traffic procedures design documents, but that's digging pretty deep into esoterica. It seems unlikely to me that anybody could write an encyclopedia article about that which was anything more than a dictdef. I left the Top Cow Productions entry because the first sentence of that article starts Top Cow Productions (TCP); while I know nothing about the topic, I took that to imply that people familiar in the field commonly use TCP to refer to the company. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Let me explain.

As I said, redlinks are useful evidence when deciding whether to give already questionable entries the benefit of the doubt or not. However, (as the MoS states) that an entry is redlinked isn't in itself sufficient justification for its removal.

I wasn't the person who added Trajectory Change Point, just the one who stopped it being removed, and there *is* a difference.

Your sole reason (going by the edit summary) for the removed entries was that they were redlinked. Although I couldn't say for sure if they belonged or not, they weren't obviously dubious, so this wasn't sufficient justification for their removal.

Now that I've read your explanation here, I accept your reasoning, but this wasn't clear at the time.

As for Top Cow Productions... I wasn't having a go at you for leaving it in, just saying that I thought it was still of more questionable utility than many of the redlinks. Fourohfour 13:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Just out of curiosity, why is there individual wiki pages for each OSI model layer, yet none for the TCP/IP model? I think we should create these pages as soon as possible- I'm surprised they haven't been already. Or is there a particular reason they were left out? zac439 18:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/03/army_escalation_handbook_070328/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.75.90.184 (talk) 17:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I'm not into all the protocol here, but there must be some question area, Wiki always seems to leave me with a question of the experts. Hope this is OK (Newmans2001 (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)).Reply

I attended working groups under the TCP "Three Countries Protocol" (aka "Travelling Cocktail Parties") in the 90s. The three countries are/where Canada, UK, and US. This was in relation to governmental defence bodies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.154.240.195 (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Tumour Control Probability, the chance a certain dose of radiation will effectively irradiate a tumour.

Widefox; talk 07:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hallo Widefox, Please note that MOS:DABENTRY says In many cases, the title of the article alone will be sufficient and no additional description is necessary.. Thanks. PamD 07:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yup sure PamD, of course it's not objective but subjective. Undoing that edit [1] removes other fixes:

• Internet protocol suite has a meaning, so is a more accurate description (following the article) than "fundamental", but my use of two "protocol"s was sloppy, so this is better:
• "Transmission Control Protocol, of the Internet protocol suite"
  • and it is vital to somehow dab the two protocols as per my edit summary
• TCP is a brand (the active ingredient having changed) so it's not a chemical as "(antiseptic)" would imply, hence a tiny description to keep it real (in fact, we arguably could spell out the original acronym of trichlorophenylmethyliodosalicyl but that seems OTT
• "Plasma" would be nice to specify that it's in physics with some wording so it's obvious it's not a plasma#Biology so in the wrong section (which at least helps me when I cleanup dabs, so may help others)
  • Also, it's not a type of plasma, but a type of plasma source, so for me it's more clear with a small description (although as the only physics entry it could be argued that it doesn't need dabbing from other entries)
• TCPalm - I see you've now restored that

Regards Widefox; talk 08:17, 8 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

• oh, and despite MOSDAB, the idea of attempting to preserve one entry without a description when all the others have one is somewhat hopeful (in my opinion/experience), as I think it's natural for editors to come along and add one if they consider it missing given all the others have one, so I'm quite laid back about attempting to go against the tide on a list entry outlier, and would prefer a minimalist one than leave for a newbie, but that's just my personal opinion that's not guideline based. Widefox; talk 08:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

User:PamD ? (just to clear that up, I don't agree with my primary topic proposal above, nowadays) Widefox; talk 14:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Widefox: My main objection to your edit was that in your edit summary "(cleanup according to WP:MOSDAB (overview WP:DABYESNO) - need text to dab two protocols -restore it)" you seemed to be saying that WP:MOSDAB required text for each dab entry, while MOS:DABENTRY is quite specific that text is not required, so that you seemed to be claiming an authority for your edit on the basis of a misreading / misremembering / whatever. PamD 14:42, 11 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Widefox: Ah, just realised I think I misunderstood your edit and edit summary - I was reading "two protocols" as referring to MOSDAB and DABYESNO! It was because your edit added text to a couple of text-less entries, as well as annotating Transmission Control Protocol, so I read the edit as being determined to add text to every entry and mis-citing MOSDAB to justify this. Sorry about that. PamD 14:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Glad you explained. Yes I was just restoring the TCP protocol entry description to the wording of the article. Hehe. Anyhow, the wording is better now you've questioned my edit (per my mistake), as long as you agree with restoring the modified edit? Widefox; talk 14:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)Reply